RE: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ

From: Paul Turner (
Date: Fri Feb 13 2004 - 10:43:31 GMT

  • Next message: james marshall: "Re: MD Attention all forum posters"

    Hello David

    David M said:
    This is so good I am going to get it printed on a t-shirt. I strongly
    suggest we adopt this. Object implies something that can be an object of

    Thanks for the kind words David. Yes, I think the terms "subject" and
    "object" have too many meanings which breeds confusion, as is evident on
    this forum.

    David M said:
    Let's stick to high or low quality static pattern from now on, if anyone
    says subjective or objective let's paste this paragraph up. This is
    exactly why under SOM objectivity has become associated with the
    quantitative analysis that applies well to the first two ontological
    levels but not the second two. Clearly there is a form of quantitative
    knowledge that is easier to reach agreement about that applies best to
    the 2 lower ontological levels. I would suggest that it applies badly to
    the 2 higher levels due to the extra DQ manifesting on these levels and
    therefore the near impossibility of doing controlled experiments. So
    long live good and bad static patterns in all their cultural
    mainfestations and down with confusing the value and reliability of
    knowledge with the ontological levels.

    Exactly my point.

    David M said:
    Paul do you agree with me that this acceptance of ontological levels is
    where you part with the anti-metaphysics of pragmatism, and follow a
    path of a radical and unique metaphysics?

    As Matt's post on this thread states, pragmatists agree that there is a
    clear difference between rocks and ideas but steer away from the word
    "ontology" and therefore "metaphysics." In this sense, the MOQ is a
    departure from pragmatism. In another sense, I think the MOQ levels are
    a pragmatic categorisation of experience justified by having high
    intellectual quality rather than a correspondence to an independent
    metaphysical reality. I think the primary static/Dynamic division
    enables the MOQ to be pragmatic and still make ontological claims and
    this may make indeed make it a radical and unique metaphysics. I've said
    before that it may be the forerunner of a new movement called "valuism."



    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 13 2004 - 10:42:40 GMT